Kingman Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 Yes, they have declined when they started making them in the US, hint hint... So, all this materials talk. What kind of materials?? Polypropylene? Polystyrene? Polyethylene? Polyimide? What was the strength, the UV resistance index, the thickness, the curing process? Was it annealed? You see, I hear all these statements and I'm pretty sure people haven't a damn clue what they are talking about other than a personal observation such "I like it" which is usually influenced my many other factors. The only facts mentioned are dimensions, weight and HP which doesn't tell you the quality of the vehicle at all. The true test of a vehicle isn't someones opinion at the car lot, it is the opinion (and cars condition/reliability) after 50k miles, 100k miles, 150k miles, etc. I love how people who have had licenses for a few years can tell you which car is better by tugging at the trim and driving it a few miles... B Though you do have a point about the scientific part of the evaluation, how do you come up with the conclusion that a vehicle that simply feels cheaper and lesser made in many aspects is somehow better then the one that feels much more well made? Would you seriously buy a new Toyota or Honda with a poorly built interior over a vehicle of another make that looks and feels much better, just because it's a Toyota or Honda? That's all ad hype and propoganda right there. "It's a Toyota so it must be better!" Push on the center console of the new Taurus, dead silent and sturdy. Push on the center console of a new Camry, creaky and weak, and you can see the faux wood trim panels flexing and becoming mis-aligned without even trying hard. Push on the door panel on the new Taurus, silent, soft-ish, and sturdy. Push on the door panel of a new Camry, creaky, flexing, and feels very cheap. Do the same with the dashboard. How someone can conclude that the lesser built vehicle is superior is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toby Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 Don't forget it is still a Tauras and plagued with the same transmission issues. I've seen more of them sitting in peoples garages with smoked trannys than on the road. No matter what way you look at it here though, you are arguing over a domestic badged sedan on an import 4x4 suv forum. What do you think the majority's opinion is? I wouldn't buy one for the simple fact it's A. a family sedan, I have no use for one already having 2 vechiles with 4 doors(and most people don't like riding with me anyway). B. too new, 1 obdII car is one too many. 3. automatic...bleh. Prefer having an odd number of pedals. D. payments, i like having none. The automatics I've seen problems with. Not so much the 5-speeds. I don't mind automatics. I drive a lot in traffic and I have problems with my left knee. So a manual can be quite a bother. Although the clutch is heavier on my S10 than the Pathfinder. Automatics now are caught up to manual transmissions. Well. Some. But this isn't about that debate. If I were to get a new sedan there's much more out there that I'd rather get for what they want for the Taurus. Add on top of that it's a new vehicle so you've got to worry about what problems will arise from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrimGreg Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 ] Those mindsets are almost 100% of the problem with anti-domestic people. No regard for fact or acknowledgment of the extreme improvement of GM and Ford products. Chrysler doesn't count because they still produce crappy products, save for a few vehicles they currently produce. Who said anti-domestic? I'm anti-Ford. Although, I'm pretty anti all makes if it is newer than 95. There are a select few vehicles I would buy built post 95, and most of those I would have to strip all the crap out, and completely rebuild to make it a nice drivable vehicle. At least I could make money selling off all that crap to people who broke theirs'. I don't want a unibody, crumple zoned, bumper "covered", 50 air bag equiped, black box ECU, overstuffed heated leather seat, "zoned" climate controlled, self parking, reverse warning, 4 wheel ABS, traction controlled, decent controlled, auto braking, mini fridge glove boxed, I POD ready POS vehicle. (I'm sure I left out a bunch of useless crap that they try and shove in cars, but you get the idea.) I want something I can hit the idiots with those cars, go home and bend my bumper back and be on my way. While they spend a month with their car in the shop paying $10k because it crumpled everything, including the 20 cup holders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toby Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 Who said anti-domestic? I'm anti-Ford. Although, I'm pretty anti all makes if it is newer than 95. There are a select few vehicles I would buy built post 95, and most of those I would have to strip all the crap out, and completely rebuild to make it a nice drivable vehicle. At least I could make money selling off all that crap to people who broke theirs'. I don't want a unibody, crumple zoned, bumper "covered", 50 air bag equiped, black box ECU, overstuffed heated leather seat, "zoned" climate controlled, self parking, reverse warning, 4 wheel ABS, traction controlled, decent controlled, auto braking, mini fridge glove boxed, I POD ready POS vehicle. (I'm sure I left out a bunch of useless crap that they try and shove in cars, but you get the idea.) I want something I can hit the idiots with those cars, go home and bend my bumper back and be on my way. While they spend a month with their car in the shop paying $10k because it crumpled everything, including the 20 cup holders. Or you roll your "superior" pathfinder or your lack of crumple zones results in you being a unpretty mark on the road. I love all the new safety advances. I'd much rather a safe vehicle. New cars are fine to work on if you know what you're doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Precise1 Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 Though you do have a point about the scientific part of the evaluation, how do you come up with the conclusion that a vehicle that simply feels cheaper and lesser made in many aspects is somehow better then the one that feels much more well made? Would you seriously buy a new Toyota or Honda with a poorly built interior over a vehicle of another make that looks and feels much better, just because it's a Toyota or Honda? That's all ad hype and propoganda right there. "It's a Toyota so it must be better!" Push on the center console of the new Taurus, dead silent and sturdy. Push on the center console of a new Camry, creaky and weak, and you can see the faux wood trim panels flexing and becoming mis-aligned without even trying hard. Push on the door panel on the new Taurus, silent, soft-ish, and sturdy. Push on the door panel of a new Camry, creaky, flexing, and feels very cheap. Do the same with the dashboard. How someone can conclude that the lesser built vehicle is superior is beyond me. No, me boyo, you miss the point. That is today that you note this. One data point, unsupported. I've said for years that I'll drive the ugliest car in the world before I'll push the prettiest. break that down to application... I'll happily have a car that seems cheaper but 100% reliable than Bling and problems. B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tungsten Posted December 6, 2009 Author Share Posted December 6, 2009 (edited) You can do that all you want lol. Pretty sure there's no chance your average CTS buyer would consider the Taurus. The taurus is crude, bigger, and just not that great. They may go for the MKS rebadge. but not the Taurus. Two totally different classes though. Well, to prove you wrong, I personally know an average CTS buyer that just bought the new Taurus. Those mindsets are almost 100% of the problem with anti-domestic people. No regard for fact or acknowledgment of the extreme improvement of GM and Ford products. Chrysler doesn't count because they still produce crappy products, save for a few vehicles they currently produce. Yes, the big 3 have made hit and miss vehicles the past 20 years, but are greatly improving now while Import products continue to decline in quality and have been since the turn of the century. I drove a new top-of-the-line Camry today at work, and what a POS that thing was. Chintzy materials, fit and finish, and a crappy layout. The feeling of the materials was directly comparable to a new Chrysler product, especially the lower-end models. That's bad. I poked and prodded around in a new CTS as well when pulling it in for the night a few weeks back. Not the greatest, but still very good materials and build quality. There wasn't one mis-aligned panel on the exterior or interior. There were a few iffy interior trim panels that felt cheap but overall a good and well-made product. I especially appreciated the double stiched leather dashboard. The quality of the interior of a new CTS or Buick blows anything Toyota made, that includes Lexus, right out of the water. People think their new Toyotas are all that and think anything else and especially Domestics are inferior, when they truley aren't. When me and my mom went and drove a new Taurus we also looked at the MKZs and MTZs. The interiors were astounding in the attention to detail and quality. I knew they were improving, but damn those blew me away. Quality level of trim from best to worst as tested by me over the weekend: 1. Ford Taurus 2. Chevy Malibu 3. Cadillac CTS 4. Toyota Camry I'm sure you can put many other domestics between 3 and 4 too. Yes, they have declined when they started making them in the US, hint hint... So, all this materials talk. What kind of materials?? Polypropylene? Polystyrene? Polyethylene? Polyimide? What was the strength, the UV resistance index, the thickness, the curing process? Was it annealed? You see, I hear all these statements and I'm pretty sure people haven't a damn clue what they are talking about other than a personal observation such "I like it" which is usually influenced my many other factors. The only facts mentioned are dimensions, weight and HP which doesn't tell you the quality of the vehicle at all. The true test of a vehicle isn't someones opinion at the car lot, it is the opinion (and cars condition/reliability) after 50k miles, 100k miles, 150k miles, etc. I love how people who have had licenses for a few years can tell you which car is better by tugging at the trim and driving it a few miles... B I dealt with the Pathy long enough to know where the weak spots of the interior will be. Though you do have a point about the scientific part of the evaluation, how do you come up with the conclusion that a vehicle that simply feels cheaper and lesser made in many aspects is somehow better then the one that feels much more well made? Would you seriously buy a new Toyota or Honda with a poorly built interior over a vehicle of another make that looks and feels much better, just because it's a Toyota or Honda? That's all ad hype and propoganda right there. "It's a Toyota so it must be better!" Push on the center console of the new Taurus, dead silent and sturdy. Push on the center console of a new Camry, creaky and weak, and you can see the faux wood trim panels flexing and becoming mis-aligned without even trying hard. Push on the door panel on the new Taurus, silent, soft-ish, and sturdy. Push on the door panel of a new Camry, creaky, flexing, and feels very cheap. Do the same with the dashboard. How someone can conclude that the lesser built vehicle is superior is beyond me. Yes, I agree with Kingman dead on. That is exactly how I evaluated the new Taurus. I don't even think that the new Taurus is that pretty, but it looks and feels very well built and I think that car will last you a while should you choose to buy it. Its a tough little car and perhaps we will be seeing police and rally versions of it later on. I am interested how it will hold up in a few years of use and abuse. Who said anti-domestic? I'm anti-Ford. Although, I'm pretty anti all makes if it is newer than 95. There are a select few vehicles I would buy built post 95, and most of those I would have to strip all the crap out, and completely rebuild to make it a nice drivable vehicle. At least I could make money selling off all that crap to people who broke theirs'. I don't want a unibody, crumple zoned, bumper "covered", 50 air bag equiped, black box ECU, overstuffed heated leather seat, "zoned" climate controlled, self parking, reverse warning, 4 wheel ABS, traction controlled, decent controlled, auto braking, mini fridge glove boxed, I POD ready POS vehicle. (I'm sure I left out a bunch of useless crap that they try and shove in cars, but you get the idea.) I want something I can hit the idiots with those cars, go home and bend my bumper back and be on my way. While they spend a month with their car in the shop paying $10k because it crumpled everything, including the 20 cup holders. ghahahhaah you're the man g Or you roll your "superior" pathfinder or your lack of crumple zones results in you being a unpretty mark on the road. I love all the new safety advances. I'd much rather a safe vehicle. New cars are fine to work on if you know what you're doing. Pathfinders don't roll! Edited December 6, 2009 by Tungsten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrimGreg Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Or you roll your "superior" pathfinder or your lack of crumple zones results in you being a unpretty mark on the road. I love all the new safety advances. I'd much rather a safe vehicle. New cars are fine to work on if you know what you're doing. My idea of a safety upgrade is to add a 5 point restraint, not a bunch of bombs throughout the car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tungsten Posted December 7, 2009 Author Share Posted December 7, 2009 My idea of a safety upgrade is to add a 5 point restraint, not a bunch of bombs throughout the car. Yep! I agree, I hate those damn air bags as much as you do. I'm so happy my Pathy has none... 5 point restraint and a roll cage and you're good to go! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingman Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Safety devices are ridiculous. When I was in my accident, I'm glad I didn't have airbags. I don't like the thought of having an explosion hit my face. I really hate ABS, especially in the winter time when it's snowy and icy. Traction control, radar detecting cruise control, etc. all pathetic and remove responsibility from the driver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tungsten Posted December 7, 2009 Author Share Posted December 7, 2009 tell that to the liberal candy asses who want all this stupid @!*% only thing id add to the pathy is a rollcage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toby Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Safety devices are ridiculous. When I was in my accident, I'm glad I didn't have airbags. I don't like the thought of having an explosion hit my face. I really hate ABS, especially in the winter time when it's snowy and icy. Traction control, radar detecting cruise control, etc. all pathetic and remove responsibility from the driver. An air bag saved my life so forgive me if I am favorable to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tungsten Posted December 7, 2009 Author Share Posted December 7, 2009 An air bag saved my life so forgive me if I am favorable to them. I heard that one before, they killed as many people as they saved. I'm sure you could have been fine without one. If you're in a crash with a bad airbag, you're not only going to get hurt from the crash, but you also get a headshot in your face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Precise1 Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 I'm sure you could have been fine without one. That's a pretty grand claim since you haven't the slightest idea what happened. I suggest you allow others their opinion and not try to second guess them, it cuts down on attitudes. Thanks. B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toby Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 (edited) I heard that one before, they killed as many people as they saved. I'm sure you could have been fine without one. If you're in a crash with a bad airbag, you're not only going to get hurt from the crash, but you also get a headshot in your face. the locker on the seatbelt had failed and the airbag deployed enough to keep me from slamming head first into the dash and possibly the windshield. So I would have been "fine" i'm sure except for the whole blunt force trauma and probable death. Call me silly for having SOME respect for a "useless" and "deadly" feature that saved my life. Edit: just looked it up. Since 1990 there have been 260 direct airbag related deaths. 90% of them being children and infants. Who should logically be in the backseat anyway. That's the research I'm finding. Edited December 7, 2009 by Toby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nunya Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 An air bag saved my life so forgive me if I am favorable to them. Just like seat belts, I have seen the good and bad of having/not having or using/not using them. Opinions... Nuff said. Get over it, your all wrong and right at the same time. ps, I walked away scratch free from a beltless crash, been hurt from a low speed seatbelt wreck, and am thankfull for belts from my 1st Pinto wreck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Precise1 Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 I'm just thankful for your first Pinto wreck and the fact this implies there were more... B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toby Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Just like seat belts, I have seen the good and bad of having/not having or using/not using them. Opinions... Nuff said. Get over it, your all wrong and right at the same time. ps, I walked away scratch free from a beltless crash, been hurt from a low speed seatbelt wreck, and am thankfull for belts from my 1st Pinto wreck. I don't think you'd be so fine at 40+ mph without a belt. But both have positives and negatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamzan Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 (edited) Its better just to avoid the accident in the first place if possible. The only feature that I like in my moms maxima is the heated steering wheel and steering wheel audio controls. Power seats and "easy exit" piss me off as does the traction control. Abs is ok but you shouldn't need it if you know how to drive in the winter. And about interior panels. My friends drive domestics, their vehicles squeak and rattle like you wouldn't believe, mine don't. Edited December 8, 2009 by adamzan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toby Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 (edited) Its better just to avoid the accident in the first place if possible. The only feature that I like in my moms maxima is the heated steering wheel and steering wheel audio controls. Power seats and "easy exit" piss me off as does the traction control. Abs is ok but you shouldn't need it if you know how to drive in the winter. And about interior panels. My friends drive domestics, their vehicles squeak and rattle like you wouldn't believe, mine don't. None of my domestics have squeaked. Everyone I work with has rattle traps it seems also i don't see the point of a heated steering wheel. steering wheel audio controls are alright. But i don't like them if the radio isn't that hard to reach. Edited December 8, 2009 by Toby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tungsten Posted December 8, 2009 Author Share Posted December 8, 2009 (edited) the locker on the seatbelt had failed and the airbag deployed enough to keep me from slamming head first into the dash and possibly the windshield. So I would have been "fine" i'm sure except for the whole blunt force trauma and probable death. Call me silly for having SOME respect for a "useless" and "deadly" feature that saved my life. Edit: just looked it up. Since 1990 there have been 260 direct airbag related deaths. 90% of them being children and infants. Who should logically be in the backseat anyway. That's the research I'm finding. first of all air bags are supplemental safety devices meant to be used with a seat belt you must have been in a car with a really weak/soft air bag and some ****** seat belt buckles you should see the old ford bags, they will blow your head clean off if you get too close to them now that said, i would like to see what recalls this new taurus will have (if any) as i am already starting to see the recalls from GM creeping up Edited December 8, 2009 by Tungsten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingman Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 In regards to the airbags, Davidsfarm (canadian guy with a bunch of cars and property, look him up on Youtube. Ultimate Redneck paradise) took older Ford airbags and blew up ovens and refrigerators with them. They were by FAR the strongest airbags out of the numerous makes he stuffed into appliences to blow up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nismothunder Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 And thats a good thing...I prefore no bags,and a lot of metal between me and the other idiots... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now